Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I've tried so hard to stay away from this thread but can't keep my mouth shut any longer.

Some people who I regarded as friends who I thought were supportive of my situation have now left me to believe they were obviously full of shit...

Ann - You said that even if your partner had known his HIV status that it would still had been your fault that you'd been infected. So, despite everything you have said to me (online/on the phone/in person) that it is in fact what you think of me and my situation???

Matty - I really thought you were my friend.

I sit here totally flabbergasted, yet totally unsurprised at the utter hypocrisy I see abundant in this thread.

Debra

PS: Those of you who know me know my situation. Those of you who don't can research my past posts/the archives.

Debra, before you castigate me like you castigated Matty for taking so long to reply, I want you to know that I didn't want to post in anger and I've given myself time to cool off. You know, it's one of those things responsible adults do, like using condoms when you can't be 100% sure of your sex partner's hiv status.

I like how you reduce all the hours upon hours I sat and listened to you whinge about being hiv positive to me being "full of shit". Thank you very much. How I wish I could have those hours back now that I know how little you appreciated my time, concern and compassion.

We hashed out the issue of you wanting to prosecute your partner ad nauseum and you knew and know exactly where I stand on the issue. I haven't ever changed my opinion one little bit. However, I put my personal feelings aside and did my best to offer you moral support - that's what true friends do. And now you throw that back in my face. Again, thank you very much.

One thing I could never figure out was how, when you knew he was a hemophiliac and had been treated with factor eight back in the day before the blood supply was screened for hiv, how could you be so complacent? You knew he had hep C from factor eight, yet you chose to stick your head in the sand where hiv was concerned. Yes, he committed a lie of omission, but that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to yourself. Woman, what were you thinking?

I'm not saying you were 100% to blame, but you refuse to take ANY responsibility for your role in your infection. I've always taken this stance with you. I think it's terrible the way his family turned a blind eye, but ultimately, him being a hemophiliac with a history of factor eight use that resulted in hep C infection should have been a major red flag. You're an intelligent woman who hasn't been living under a rock, after all.

I never agreed with you prosecuting him, but I did my level best to understand your reasoning and I tried to support you in your choice. See, that's what friends do, they might not always agree with a friend's actions, but they do their best to support them regardless. If that makes me full of shit, so be it.

You cannot expect a woman to use a condom throughout her entire relationship 'just in case' she is being lied to, cheated on or deceived. It's not realistic and like I said, we would see a rapid decline in the species as there would be no pregnancies. And the same for men too.

It IS realistic to expect people to use condoms until such point where they are in a securely monogamous relationship - where they are comfortable enough with each other to go get tested TOGETHER before dispensing with the condoms. If you're comfortable and intimate enough to want to have unprotected intercourse, then you should be comfortable and intimate enough to go to a sexual health clinic together. If you're not, then keep using the condoms. It's just the way it has to be for sexual relationships in the 21st century.

edited to replace the word "ignorant" with the word "complacent". Complacent was the word I originally wanted, but it escaped me in my hour of need. One of those "it's on the tip of my tongue" moments. I wanted to get the post over and done with so I went with the far inferior word that didn't quite convey what I meant. Complacent is exactly what I meant and I thought it was appropriate that I change it, for clarity's sake.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

No, it has not declined into semantics. You and many continue to confuse or willingly refuse to address our case of rejecting criminal responsibility, equating it to a wholesale rejection of any sort of responsibility, be it "social" or "moral" as you care to add in front of the word.

Deadly STDs have accompanied humanity since the dawn of civilization and yet we continue to procreate. We constantly talk about a responsibility to stop the virus with us; what we're against is a highly stigmatized criminalization of this responsibility because it serves no purpose at all but a further victimization of the infected, you included.

If you fail to think of any good line of reasoning to rebuke our arguments, just admit it.

I think you are missing my point. I am trying to point out that the responsibility issue is not black and white. I have not once mentioned that this should be criminalised, nor do I think that - I think this would serve no purpose and would not deter someone who was intent on doing this anyway. Plus what is done is done. If I so thought this then I would have followed criminal avenues myself. I do however get confused about human nature and how you can say that people are equally responsible. I guess it takes a lot of people to make a world. And some are too trusting, others not.

You just keep using false analogies - once you get inside a bus and let the other drive, you have no control over the vehicle. But while having consented to sex, you can still stop before unprotected sex is about to happen. And if you don't see the difference, I don't really see the point of this "discussion" as many of us have presented you with the distinctions, while all you offer is nothing but this nonsensual analogizing.

Her analogy is perfect, you either don't know what ANALOGY means or are just too bent on trying to present your case.

I will not get into the pointless discussion ad infinitum (there are probably 400 replies in this thread now - so both sides had ample opportunity to explain themselves), just wanted to point out that you are using a fairly cheap trick - when one presents you with an analogy, you claim that the analogy isn't actually correct since it contains a number of differences with the subject at hand. Well - that's how analogies work. They are not meant to be replicas of the situation - but rather highlight important similarities.

The similarity is that our society functions on a certain level of trust between people. We go through every day assuming that other members of society would not kill us, even if they have the opportunity to. Assuming otherwise (as you lot claim one should always expect his sex partner to have all possible STDs) would mean staying at home fearing for one's life.

I would also note one more thing - that this debate is (largely) split along sexuality lines. This is normal - as we come to have different expectations of risk based on the types of sexual lives we lead. (Forewarning for those who are falling out of their chairs aghast at how I have the nerve to point out the obvious - please spare the cries of X-phobias). So those who have sex that carries a 30-40% risk of transmission have a different outlook than those who have .01% risk (these are rough estimates, feel free to change them as you see fit). Hence the former have every reasonable right to ALWAYS expect the worst while the latter do not.

.., just wanted to point out that you are using a fairly cheap trick - when one presents you with an analogy, you claim that the analogy isn't actually correct since it contains a number of differences with the subject at hand. Well - that's how analogies work. They are not meant to be replicas of the situation - but rather highlight important similarities.

When it comes to criminal responsibility analogy should never be applied to justify the criminalization of a certain act. Each act has to be considered separately.

We gays are dealing with it everyday, so we know what we are talking about. What yours and her analogies are no different than say "if a man has sex with an animal is a criminal offense" than "a man having sex with another man should also be a criminal offense" because both acts are not a man having sex with a woman.

What you're doing is just going on and on telling me if drunk driving is a criminal offense so having unprotected sex knowingly while being HIV+ should also be a criminal offense because in both cases some sort of "responsibilities" require criminal punishment.

And I have no idea why you keep going back to this point as we have categorically rebuked it several pages ago, and in any case just look at TP's post above yours.

Boze, I almost think I have interpreted what you wrote here correctly... but could you clarify exactly what you are saying. Please.

'I would also note one more thing - that this debate is (largely) split along sexuality lines. This is normal - as we come to have different expectations of risk based on the types of sexual lives we lead. (Forewarning for those who are falling out of their chairs aghast at how I have the nerve to point out the obvious - please spare the cries of X-phobias). So those who have sex that carries a 30-40% risk of transmission have a different outlook than those who have .01% risk (these are rough estimates, feel free to change them as you see fit). Hence the former have every reasonable right to ALWAYS expect the worst while the latter do not.'

(apologies I did not read the splab aboput how to cut and paste from a previous post - will go do my homework now)

I would also note one more thing - that this debate is (largely) split along sexuality lines. This is normal - as we come to have different expectations of risk based on the types of sexual lives we lead. (Forewarning for those who are falling out of their chairs aghast at how I have the nerve to point out the obvious - please spare the cries of X-phobias). So those who have sex that carries a 30-40% risk of transmission have a different outlook than those who have .01% risk (these are rough estimates, feel free to change them as you see fit). Hence the former have every reasonable right to ALWAYS expect the worst while the latter do not.

The only true risk group is that group of people who have unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse with people of positive or unknown hiv status and it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or somewhere in between.

This brings us back to condom usage. If you don't want to be in a risk group for hiv, use the damn things. It's as simple as that.

By your use of the phrases "the types of sexual lives we lead" and "sexuality lines" I take it you mean whether a person is gay or straight. Utter rubbish, as there are far more straights living with hiv than there are gays. I made the mistake of thinking because I wasn't a gay man or living in Africa I didn't need to worry about hiv. This is the thinking we need to stop others from engaging in so they don't follow in our footsteps. It's not who you do, it's how you do it. That's the message that people need to hear.

If we continue to criminalise hiv transmission, it only reinforces the idea that personal responsibility doesn't come into it. Maybe if BOTH parties were prosecuted for not wearing a condom when infection occurs, the so-called "victims" who bring these prosecutions would think twice about their own role in their infection. Charge both parties with criminal negligence resulting in serious illness.

To be clear, I don't want either party charged for hiv transmission (I'm not talking about rape, just consensual). But if you're going to charge one party for what basically amounts to not using a condom, then charge both parties because condom use is a shared responsibility.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

What I find so disappointing, about some of the comments here, is how some posters want to criminalize the transmission of HIV, rather than taking personal responsibility for their infection. Some of you seem to want that "criminalization" status, as a way of absolving yourself, so you can continue to play the victim. So go ahead and play the victim, but don't expect the majority of us, to agree with you. A failing on your part, does not always equal a failing on the part of another.

Boze, I almost think I have interpreted what you wrote here correctly... but could you clarify exactly what you are saying. Please.

'I would also note one more thing - that this debate is (largely) split along sexuality lines. This is normal - as we come to have different expectations of risk based on the types of sexual lives we lead. (Forewarning for those who are falling out of their chairs aghast at how I have the nerve to point out the obvious - please spare the cries of X-phobias). So those who have sex that carries a 30-40% risk of transmission have a different outlook than those who have .01% risk (these are rough estimates, feel free to change them as you see fit). Hence the former have every reasonable right to ALWAYS expect the worst while the latter do not.'

(apologies I did not read the splab aboput how to cut and paste from a previous post - will go do my homework now)

Sure. Basically those of us who are MSM know that this activity carries a very high transmission risk (gay men in the US have a 60-fold higher risk of being HIV+). Ie if one meets a random dude in the park, has sex with him and then finds out he got HIV - well it's kinda not a huge surprise. Hence the talk about shared responsibility, etc. On the other hand - a woman who is lied to by her bf has faced an entirely different set of probabilities. Hence she sees the 'shared responsibility' in an entirely different light.

The only true risk group is that group of people who have unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse with people of positive or unknown hiv status and it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or somewhere in between.

Oh, it's bullcrap anyway -- where I live the statistics are that 33% of new infections are from heterosexual sex. *Hello* that's not an insignificant number.

It amazes me that folks still come on here and scream about being a straight male victim of gay ass fairy flu.

33% of new infections, 95% of population. Do the math - likelihoods are order of magnitutude different. My point was not to say that it's a gay disease - only to show that we look at it from different angles. Members of one group have entirely different expectations vis-a-vis unprotected sex they have vs. the other. I'm not saying that the straights are right - probably more ignorant. But the law is meant to protect the stupid and ignorant.

What I find so disappointing, about some of the comments here, is how some posters want to criminalize the transmission of HIV, rather than taking personal responsibility for their infection. Some of you seem to want that "criminalization" status, as a way of absolving yourself, so you can continue to play the victim. So go ahead and play the victim, but don't expect the majority of us, to agree with you. A failing on your part, does not always equal a failing on the part of another.

Just for the record - for me this is not personal. I was infected by someone who didn't know her status (I informed her after my diagnosis). It's just an ethical question - I see the responsibility square with the infector and the person who got ill as the victim. As far as 'the majority of you to agree with me'- let's not forget where the real majority is and how they view this issue. I was just trying to bridge the gap.

As far as 'the majority of you to agree with me'- let's not forget where the real majority is and how they view this issue. I was just trying to bridge the gap.

This is why I find you so frustrating, your blanket statements of facts (your own) are presented as if they had some validity and they do not. You have no idea what a majority of people think and when you state your biased views as fact, well how can anyone discuss anything, when you get to invent all the proof?

This is why I find you so frustrating, your blanket statements of facts (your own) are presented as if they had some validity and they do not. You have no idea what a majority of people think and when you state your biased views as fact, well how can anyone discuss anything, when you get to invent all the proof?

I think he means what I hoped he didn't mean, you know... us straights are in the dark and for some reason enjoy staying there.

This is why I find you so frustrating, your blanket statements of facts (your own) are presented as if they had some validity and they do not. You have no idea what a majority of people think and when you state your biased views as fact, well how can anyone discuss anything, when you get to invent all the proof?

This thread is crock of shit, mainly cos useful emotional trurths are obscured by ONE POSTER who is factually innacurate, erm, as he tends to be in all his posts. Dangerously so. There's baloney, self-justifying baloney and the poster in this thread.

I'll be back when I can't see this at the top of the Living With forum

I would expect straight population to have a much higher support for this, around 75-80%. But that's only a guess.

Thank you for proving my point. To link a reader survey, as some sound rationale for your views is laughable. The survey proves nothing, other than what a certain group of readers think. You cannot extrapolate that into anything, no matter how hard you try. I could conduct a survey and predefine the results, based on the questions and how I worded them. When you find the links for real peer reviewed scientific studies, that support your gross generalizations and distortions, let us know.

This thread seems to have been worked over and flogged some. It's one of those subjects which turns up every now and then and generally seems to evoke some harsh exchanges.

It doesn't seem to be evolving progressively at this point. And requests have been made to lock it. Which is what I am doing now. Except that David beat me to it. LOL

I'll also just finally add that ever since HIV/AIDS became a part of our lives this kind of boogey man scare stuff has been used and misused. It very unfortunately allows focus to be shifted from the very real urgent issues about effective infection prevention.